{"corpus":"steiner","locus":"GA 322/1920-10-03_02/p020","lang":"en","edition":"English","edition_basis":null,"is_original":false,"is_default_edition":true,"text":"All this had to be contrasted with what can be experienced as a kind of dead end in Western spiritual evolution. Let me explain what I mean. In 1841 Michelet, the Berlin philosopher, published posthumously Hegel's works on natural philosophy. Hegel had worked at the end of the eighteenth century, together with Schelling, at laying the foundations of a system of natural philosophy. Schelling, as a young firebrand, had constructed his natural philosophy in a remarkable way out of what he called “intellectual Intuition” [ *intellektuale Anschauung*]. He reached a point, however, where he could make no further progress. He immersed himself in the mystics at a certain point. His work, *Bruno, or Concerning the Divine and Natural Principle in Things*, and his fine treatise on human freedom and the origin of evil testify so wonderfully to this immersion. But for all this he could make no progress and began to hold back from expressing himself at all. He kept promising to follow up with a philosophy that would reveal the true nature of those hidden forces at which his earlier natural philosophy had only hinted. When Michelet published Hegel's natural philosophy in 1841, Schelling's long-expected and oft-promised “philosophy of revelation” had still not been vouchsafed to the public. He was summoned to Berlin. What he h ad to offer, however, was not the actual spirit that was to permeate the natural philosophy he had founded. He had striven for an intellectual intuition. He ground to a halt at this point, because he was unable to use Imagination to enter the sphere of which I spoke to you today. And so he was stuck there. Hegel, who had a more rational intellect, had taken over Schelling's thoughts and carried them further by applying pure thinking to the observation of nature. That was the origin of Hegel's natural philosophy. And so one had Schelling's unfulfilled promise to bring forth nature out of the spirit, and then one had Hegel's natural philosophy, which was discarded by science in the second half of the nineteenth century. It was misunderstood, to be sure, but it was bound to remain so, because it was impossible to gain any kind of connection to the ideas contained in Hegel's natural philosophy with regard to phenomenology, the true observation of nature. It is a kind of wonderful incident: Schelling traveling from Munich to Berlin, where great things are expected of him, and it turns out that he has nothing to say. It was a disappointment for all who believed that through Hegel's natural philosophy revelations about nature would emerge from pure thinking. Thus it was in a way demonstrated historically, in that Schelling had attained the level of intellectual intuition but not that of genuine Imagination and in that Hegel showed as well that if pure thinking does not lead on to Imagination or to Inspiration—that is, to the level of nature's secrets ... it was shown that the evolution of the West had thereby run up against a dead end. There was as yet nothing to counter what had come over from the Orient and engendered skepticism; one could counter with nothing that was suffused with the spirit. And anyone who had immersed himself lovingly in Schelling and Hegel and has thus been able to see, with love in his heart, the limitations of Western philosophy, had to strive for anthroposophy. He had to strive to bring about an anthroposophically oriented spiritual science for the West, so that we will possess something that works creatively in the spirit, just as the East had worked in the spirit through systole and diastole in their interaction. We in the West can allow perception and thinking to resound through one another in the soul-spirit [ *das geistig-seelische Ineinanderklingenlassen*], through which we can rise to something more than a merely abstract science. It opens the way to a living science, which is the only kind of science that enables us to dwell within the element of truth. After all the failures of the Kantian, Schellingian, and Hegelian philosophies, we need a philosophy that, by revealing the way of the spirit, can show the real relationship between truth and science, a spiritualized science, in which truth can really live to the great benefit of future human evolution.","text_trust":"verbatim","quote_safe":true,"title":"Lecture VIII","site_heading":"Western Spiritual Science: Imagination, Inspiration, and Intuition","site_heading_note":"A heading the site wrote for this unit from a summary of it; not in the edition, and not the words of Rudolf Steiner or of the translator. Cite the unit by its title and locus, never by this heading, and do not quote it.","date":"1920-10-03","location":null,"word_count":715,"url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/en/ga/322/1920-10-03_02/p020","alignment_confidence":"medium","alignment_reason":"beads:length","two_voice_volume":false,"translation_credit":{"scope":"unit","status":"established","translator":"Frederick Amrine and Konrad Oberhuber","identified_edition":"AP1983","book_title":"The Boundaries of Natural Science","publisher":"Anthroposophic Press","publisher_inferred":true,"match_score":1.0,"source_url":"https://www.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA322/English/AP1983/19201003p01.html","evidence":"lecture_list_row","publisher_note":"The publisher is inferred from the edition code in this lecture's source URL, not stated by the source page. The translator IS verified for this lecture: its own source names the translator (evidence: the lecture's page, rsarchive's lecture list, or the cover of the book it was published in), and that page's text was matched against this unit (see match_score and source_url). Cite the translator with confidence; attribute the publisher only as probable."},"edition_coverage":{"de":["original"],"en":["English"]},"available_versions":[{"lang":"en","edition":"English","edition_basis":null,"is_original":false,"is_default_edition":true,"url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/en/ga/322/1920-10-03_02/p020","paragraph_aligned":true}],"record":{"record_type":"unknown","scope":"volume","note":"How this text was taken down (shorthand transcript, listeners' notes or manuscript) is not on record here. Unknown is not an assurance of a stenogram: check the edition's own notes before resting an argument on one word.","evidence":null,"evidence_translation":null,"evidence_source":null},"other_renderings":{"loci":[{"locus":"GA 322/1920-10-03","ga":"322","lecture":"1920-10-03","kind":"renderings","relation":"another translation or transcription of the same lecture"}],"note":"The same lecture is also served at the loci listed, each with how it relates to this one. They are ONE witness, not independent attestations: quote the rendering you fetched, and do not cite another as corroborating it. Wording differs between translations, so a quotation found in one need not occur in the other."},"unit_kind":{"kind":"second_translation","base_unit":"GA 322/1920-10-03","note":"A second English translation of the same lecture as 1920-10-03. The German served under this id repeats the German of 1920-10-03: one German text, to be cited at 1920-10-03.","same_lecture_as":"GA 322/1920-10-03","german_repeats":"GA 322/1920-10-03"},"german_anchor":{"de_prefix":"1920-10-03_02","de_passages":[{"locus":"GA 322/1920-10-03_02/p019","url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/de/ga/322/1920-10-03_02/p019"}],"bead_confidence":"medium","pairing_state":"proposed","verified":false,"length_check":{"de_words":699,"en_words":715,"ratio":1.02,"partial":false},"correspondence":"established","note":"English passage numbering is edition-relative, so the same number need not name the same paragraph in the German. The German original passage(s) above are the edition-invariant anchor — fetch them (lang='de') to verify wording before quoting across editions."},"paired_german":{"status":"paired","german":[{"locus":"GA 322/1920-10-03_02/p019","passage_number":19,"text":"Das mußte gewissermaßen entgegengehalten werden demjenigen, was ja, ich möchte sagen, als die Sackgasse der abendländischen Geistesentwickelung erlebt werden konnte. Ich will Ihnen das auf folgende Weise charakterisieren. Es war im Jahre 1841, da veröffentlichte Michelet, der Berliner Philosoph, die nachgelassenen naturphilosophischen Werke Hegels. Hegel hatte zusammen mit Schelling am Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts an der Entstehung einer Naturphilosophie gearbeitet. Schelling als jugendlicher Feuergeist, er hatte in einer merkwürdigen Weise zunächst aus dem, was er intellektuelle Anschauung nannte, seine Naturphilosophie herauskonstruiert. Aber er kam an einen Punkt, da kam er nicht weiter. Er kam an den Punkt, wo er sich dann in die Mystiker vertiefte. Von seiner Vertiefung in die Mystik zeugen in so wunderbarer Weise seine Schrift «Bruno oder über das göttliche und natürliche Prinzip der Dinge» und seine schöne Schrift über die menschliche Freiheit oder den Ursprung des Bösen. Aber all das brachte es noch nicht weiter, und Schelling fing an zu schweigen, versprach nur immer, daß noch nachkommen sollte eine Philosophie, die erst die eigentlichen geheimen Kräfte, die sich in seiner früheren Naturphilosophie nur andeutend zeigten, enthüllen sollte. Und als die Hegelsche Naturphilosophie 1841 durch Michelet erschien, da war es so, daß Schelling dasjenige, was man von ihm erwartete, was er oftmals versprochen hatte, seine eigentliche Offenbarungsphilosophie, noch immer nicht der Welt mitgeteilt hatte. Er wurde nach Berlin berufen. Aber auch dasjenige, was er da darbieten konnte, es war nicht wirklicher Geist, der durchdringen sollte dasjenige, was er als Naturphilosophie begründet hatte. Er hatte gestrebt nach einer intellektuellen Anschauung. Das war aber auch so etwas, bei dem er stehenblieb, weil er nicht durch Imagination hineinkommen konnte in dasjenige Gebiet, von dem ich Ihnen heute gesprochen habe. Und so blieb er stecken. Und Hegel, der ein mehr rationalistischer Geist war, der nahm den Gedanken Schellings an, und, indem er reine Gedanken einführte über die Naturbeobachtung, führte er ihn weiter. Da entstand Hegels Naturphilosophie. Und so hatte man Schellings Versprechen einer Erzeugung der Natur aus dem Geiste heraus, das niemals erfüllt worden ist, und so hatte man Hegels Naturphilosophie, die verlassen wurde von der Naturforschung in der zweiten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts — allerdings unverstanden, aber sie mußte unverstanden bleiben, weil man gegenüber der wirklichen Naturbeobachtung, gegenüber der Phänomenologie der Natur kein Verhältnis gewinnen konnte zu dem, was an Gedankeninhalt die Hegelsche Naturphilosophie bot. Es ist, ich möchte sagen, ein wunderbares Zusammentreffen, wie Schelling von München nach Berlin geht, wie man dort Großes erwartet von ihm, wie er aber doch nichts zu berichten weiß. Es ist eine Enttäuschung gewesen für alle diejenigen, die geglaubt haben, aus dem reinen Gedanken heraus Offenbarungen über die Natur durch die Hegelsche Naturphilosophie zu erhalten. So hatte sich, ich möchte sagen, historisch erwiesen dadurch, daß Schelling bis zu intellektuellen Anschauungen vorgeschritten war, aber nun nicht zur wirklichen Imagination kommen konnte, dadurch, daß Hegel auch gezeigt hat, daß man mit dem reinen Denken, wenn man nicht zur Imagination kommt, auch nicht bis zur Inspiration, also bis zu den Naturgeheimnissen kommt, es hatte sich erwiesen, daß man dadurch in der Entwickelung des Abendlandes in eine Sackgasse hineingekommen war. Man wußte noch nichts gegenüberzustellen demjenigen, was vom Orienteherüberkam und den Skeptizismus aufgerufen hatte, man wußte nichts entgegenzustellen, was geistig durchtränkt war. Und gerade derjenige, der sich so recht liebend vertieft hat in dasjenige, was Schelling und Hegel sind, der dasjenige dadurch hat sehen können, mit Liebe hat sehen können, was nicht hat werden können durch die Philosophie des Abendlandes, der mußte streben nach Anthroposophie, nach anthroposophisch orientierter Geisteswissenschaft für das Abendland, damit wir etwas haben, was so aus dem Geiste herausschöpft, wie der Morgenländer aus dem Geiste herausgeschöpft hat durch Systole und Diastole und ihr Zusammenwirken. Wir im Abendlande haben das geistig-seelische Ineinanderklingenlassen von Wahrnehmung und Denken, indem wir aufsteigen zu einer Wissenschaft, die nicht bloß eine abstrakte, sondern eine lebendige Wissenschaft ist, die aber auch dafür diejenige Wissenschaft ist, die uns im Elemente der Wahrheit leben läßt. Und nach allem Fehlschlagen des Kantianismus, des Schellingianismus, des Hegelianismus brauchten wir eine solche Philosophie, die durch die Entdeckung des Geistesweges zeigen konnte, wie Wahrheit und Wissenschaft in ihrem wirklichen Verhältnisse zueinander sind; eine solche vergeistigte Wissenschaft, in der wirklich Wahrheit zum Heile der menschlichen Fortentwickelung leben kann.","text_trust":"verbatim","quote_safe":true,"word_count":699,"url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/de/ga/322/1920-10-03_02/p019"}],"english":["GA 322/1920-10-03_02/p020"],"method":"length","confidence":"medium","correspondence":"established","length_check":{"de_words":699,"en_words":715,"ratio":1.02,"partial":false},"pairing_state":"proposed","verified":false},"witness_completeness":{"ratio":1.02,"band":"comparable","note":null,"word_count":6201,"original_word_count":6102,"may_be_abridged":false},"witness_quality":{"translator":{"scope":"unit","status":"recorded","translator":"Frederick Amrine and Konrad Oberhuber","identified_edition":"AP1983","book_title":"The Boundaries of Natural Science","publisher":"Anthroposophic Press","publisher_inferred":true,"match_score":1.0,"source_url":"https://www.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA322/English/AP1983/19201003p01.html","evidence":"lecture_list_row","publisher_note":"The publisher is inferred from the edition code in this lecture's source URL, not stated by the source page. The translator IS verified for this lecture: its own source names the translator (evidence: the lecture's page, rsarchive's lecture list, or the cover of the book it was published in), and that page's text was matched against this unit (see match_score and source_url). Cite the translator with confidence; attribute the publisher only as probable."},"entity_parity":{"status":"ok","checked_against":["GA 322/1920-10-03_02/p019"],"missing_from_translation":[],"present_only_in_translation":[],"bead_confidence":"medium","note":"Every load-bearing name in the German counterpart appears in this English passage. That is a check on NAMES only: a translation can keep every name and still reverse who acts on whom, change a number, or soften a claim. Read the German for anything you intend to rest an argument on."},"note":"quote_safe certifies the bytes of this text. This block is about the translation as a WITNESS: who made it, and whether it carries the same names as the original. See witness_completeness for how much of the original this witness holds."}}